The John Dehlin Quiz In Support Of A Change Within Lds Regarding Ssa And Ordaining Women

[emarkp]

So you ignore the 2nd half of the proclamation. And the meaning of the word "marriage" (which I mentioned above means the union of husband and wife-not merely a union of two people). Making up a new meaning for the word doesn't make it so.

 

Saying you accept the proclamation doesn't mean you actually do either.

[Glenn101]

That's the 1st amendment argument and the one that is closest to my heart. But it's the 14th amendment argument that the judges seem to be using to legalize marriage equality.

 

So, you are saying that you also endorse the desire of a brother and sister to enter into marriage??? Or a mother to marry a son or a father to marry a daughter? (All assuming that there would be no posssibility of any children being conceived in any of those relationships. Also assuming that all are of the legal age of consent.

 

Glenn

Edited October 16, 2013 by Glenn101

[rockpond]

So, you are saying that you also endorse the desire of a brother and sister to enter into marriage??? Or a mother to marry a son or a father to marry a daughter? (All assuming that there would be no posssibility of any children being conceived in any of those relationships. Also assuming that all are of the legal age of consent.

Glenn

No, I don't endorse it. I find it disturbing.

[wenglund]

Due process and equal protection under the law are the constitutional arguments in favor of marriage equality.

 

When you say "marriage equality," what is your legal and constitutional definition of "marriage?" (This will be my last question on this tangent. It will be interesting to see you answer it with out begging the question.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

When you say "marriage equality," what is your legal and constitutional definition of "marriage?" (This will be my last question on this tangent. It will be interesting to see you answer it with out begging the question.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Two consenting adults willing to make that lifelong commitment to each other either before God or the official of their choice.  In other words, we don't discriminate by gender, race, or sexual orientation.

[wenglund]

Two consenting adults willing to make that lifelong commitment to each other either before God or the official of their choice.  In other words, we don't discriminate by gender, race, or sexual orientation.

 

...though you are fine with discriminating based on age, proximity in familial relationship, consent, level of commitment, human vs. animal, etc. In other words, you discriminate in terms of who or what you will or wont discriminate against, under the guise of "equality." Got it.

 

Be that as it may, I am waiting for you to consistently advocate as passionately for bigamy and polygamy as you have for SSM, all in the name of "marriage equality."

 

However, not that it matters to the thread, you failed to mention where in the law the word "marriage" was defined (implicitly or explicitly) as you just described.

 

This, by the way, is the crux of the matter. The only way that SSM can be logically argued constitutionally, is by ignoring or re-defining the traditional/legal definition of marriage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

...though you are fine with discriminating based on age, proximity in familial relationship, consent, level of commitment, human vs. animal, etc. In other words, you discriminate in terms of who or what you will or wont discriminate against, under the guise of "equality." Got it.

 

Be that as it may, I am waiting for you to consistently advocate as passionately for bigamy and polygamy as you have for SSM, all in the name of "marriage equality."

 

However, not that it matters to the thread, you failed to mention where in the law the word "marriage" was defined (implicitly or explicitly) as you just described.

 

This, by the way, is the crux of the matter. The only way that SSM can be logically argued constitutionally, is by ignoring or re-defining the traditional/legal definition of marriage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Discriminating based on...

 

Age - minors vs adults - yes

Proximity of Familial Relationship - no, but yes to making sure minors are protected

Consent - how can we not discriminate based on this?

Animals - yes, they are not human, not citizens, and do not have constitutional rights

 

I do my best to promote equality.  And you seem to enjoy mocking me for it.  Got it.

 

Bigamy/polygamy to me are a separate issue because the legal constructs involve more than two people.  But, I have spoken out frequently on these boards in support of legalizing polygamy (again, for consenting adults).  I believe what was done to the church in the late 19th century by the U.S. government was wrong.  I believe that religious freedoms were denied.  I believe that by making polygamy illegal we drove fundamentalists into isolation and helped create the terrible situation we seem to have now in some of these fundamentalist communities.

 

As for definitions...

 

The traditional definition of marriage has changed over the centuries.  it's never really stopped changing so I don't find much relevance in discussing it as some fixed, universally understood term.  Because it's not.

 

As for legal definition, that varies by municipality.  When I lived in CA in the late 90's the CA family law code did not define it as a man and a woman.  It was defined as two people.  So, you see, the legal definition you claim did not exist in CA.  Along came Prop 22 in 2000 that re-wrote that portion of CA state law to define it as a man and a woman.  I was there at the time.

 

Prop 22 was subsequently appealed and ultimately overturned.  Which opened up CA to legal gay marriage.  Municipalities began issuing those marriage licenses and that prompted Prop 8.  Which, as we know, altered CA's state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman (because, it wasn't defined as such before).

 

So, it was actually Prop 22 and Prop 8 in California that attempted to legally define marriage to fit the way you see it.  A definition which was subsequently found unconstitutional... multiple times.

Edited October 16, 2013 by rockpond

[pogi]

But bisexuality is not a contending of two separate sexual orientations and cannot be defined or treated as such. To do so is to try to oversimplify or take an easier route. This is not possible. In bisexual persons, their attraction is psychologically and emotionally treated as a single sexual orientation. There is no dissecting one from the other as they are intertwined.

 

I guess we have to be fair to bisexuals too and make polygamy legal then, because it would be wrong to make them choose one or the other. 

 

My sexual orientation is not found in the limitations of  monogamy.  I am attracted to far more women than just my wife, yet I find fulfillment in just choosing her.  I think the same would apply to bisexuals. 

Edited October 16, 2013 by pogi

[california boy]

...though you are fine with discriminating based on age, proximity in familial relationship, consent, level of commitment, human vs. animal, etc. In other words, you discriminate in terms of who or what you will or wont discriminate against, under the guise of "equality." Got it.

 

Be that as it may, I am waiting for you to consistently advocate as passionately for bigamy and polygamy as you have for SSM, all in the name of "marriage equality."

 

However, not that it matters to the thread, you failed to mention where in the law the word "marriage" was defined (implicitly or explicitly) as you just described.

 

This, by the way, is the crux of the matter. The only way that SSM can be logically argued constitutionally, is by ignoring or re-defining the traditional/legal definition of marriage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How many times are you going to try and equate gay marriage with incest and bestiality before you realize that argument is a strawman argument that the courts and the majority of Americans think is ridiculous.  If you could come up with a rational legal argument that the courts would accept, then you could justify your position.  Since you can't, you fall back on the same old fear mongering.  The courts are becoming increasingly clear that as Americans, we don't believe in discriminating against other Americans for no unfounded reason other than prejudice.  

Edited October 16, 2013 by california boy

[emarkp]

Two consenting adults willing to make that lifelong commitment to each other either before God or the official of their choice. In other words, we don't discriminate by gender, race, or sexual orientation.

Making up words doesn't lead to good communication. Apocryphally from Abe Lincoln, "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling it a leg doesn't make it one."

Marriage has meant the union between a husband and wife for at least as long as the English language has existed. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. Tacking on the "equality" is redundant if you've changed the definition already. It's a typical Orwellian neologism that's common in PC thinking.

[rockpond]

Making up words doesn't lead to good communication. Apocryphally from Abe Lincoln, "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling it a leg doesn't make it one."

Marriage has meant the union between a husband and wife for at least as long as the English language has existed. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. Tacking on the "equality" is redundant if you've changed the definition already. It's a typical Orwellian neologism that's common in PC thinking.

 

 

You're right... let's go back to the Old Testament tradition of marriage where women were traded as property, polygamy was allowed, and so were concubines.

 

Or we could realize that as an enlightened society we don't bind ourselves to concepts simply because they were a "tradition".

Edited October 16, 2013 by rockpond

[emarkp]

False dichotomy, and you know it.

Your declaration that the definition of marriage has changed doesn't make it so. Furthermore, we don't abandon concepts purely because they are a tradition.

And I thought you didn't have a problem with polygamy?

Edited October 17, 2013 by emarkp

[rockpond]

False dichotomy, and you know it.

Your declaration that the definition of marriage has changed doesn't make it so. Furthermore, we don't abandon concepts purely because they are a tradition.

And I thought you didn't have a problem with polygamy?

Ummm... Your declaration that the definition hasn't changed doesn't make it so either. And, oh wait, I actually included an example to support my statement.

I never said we abandon concepts simply because they are tradition. Just that tradition doesn't magically give them legal relevance.

I don't have a problem with polygamy. I assume you don't either since it is part of our tradition going back to the earliest recorded history. Right? It should be codified into US law since it was a tradition, correct?

Edited October 17, 2013 by rockpond

[Glenn101]

So, you are saying that you also endorse the desire of a brother and sister to enter into marriage??? Or a mother to marry a son or a father to marry a daughter? (All assuming that there would be no posssibility of any children being conceived in any of those relationships. Also assuming that all are of the legal age of consent.

Glenn

 

 

No, I don't endorse it. I find it disturbing.

 

But why do you find it disturbing??? What would be wrong with it???

 

Glenn

[Glenn101]

How many times are you going to try and equate gay marriage with incest and bestiality before you realize that argument is a strawman argument that the courts and the majority of Americans think is ridiculous.  If you could come up with a rational legal argument that the courts would accept, then you could justify your position.  Since you can't, you fall back on the same old fear mongering.  The courts are becoming increasingly clear that as Americans, we don't believe in discriminating against other Americans for no unfounded reason other than prejudice.  

 

 

You have to remember that until fairly recently laws against sodomy, etc were de jour. Twenty years ago SSM advocates would not have got past first base in the courts. In Missouri at least, it is not against the law to have sexual intercourse with an animal. What is the real difference between sodomy and having intercourse with an animal???

 

Glenn

[Nemesis]

This thread has gone completely off topic. If you guys can't stop derailing threads we will place you in limited group so maybe you'll stop clogging threads.